Planned Parenthood rakes in more than $500 million in taxpayer money every year. The “non-profit” organization reported a profit of $87.4 million in 2011-2012, in part by performing 333,964 surgical abortions. At $500 per abortion, that’s a stunning $166 million from the baby termination end of the business. They also dispense 1.4 million so-called morning-after pills, many paid for with federal Title X money. A dirty little secret of the abortion industry is that these are not reported in any abortion statistics. While some argue that these do not cause abortions, the prescribing information for the drug says that “alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy.”

That means that sometimes it works by making the uterus a hostile environment for a fertilized egg. Most women who receive “Plan B” are not told they could potentially end the life of a fertilized egg, which many consider to be a human life (with its own DNA). By some accounts, Planned Parenthood makes a profit of $20 on each “emergency contraceptive kit,” resulting in a profit of more than $28 million for handing out these pills like they’re candy. In contrast, they made only 2,300 adoption referrals the same year. And prenatal services? According to LifeNews:

In 2009, Planned Parenthood reported performing 40,489 prenatal services for 7,021 prenatal clients, an average of roughly 6 services per prenatal client. Assuming an average of 6 prenatal services per client, Planned Parenthood’s current listing of 31,098 prenatal “services” could be for just over 5,000 prenatal clients. That is 5,000 prenatal clients versus well over 300,000 abortions.

The cold, hard truth is that if women stop aborting their babies, Planned Parenthood as we know it will cease to exist.

The “safe-legal-rare” crowd knows they hold the advantage in the ideological war for abortion on demand by only the thinnest string. Back in 1973, when the Supreme Court forced legalized abortion upon the country, it wasn’t difficult to convince a mother that the man coming at her with the surgical mask and a vacuum device was sucking a “blob of tissue” from her womb, because the technology did not exist to see the baby inside. But with the advent of 3-D and 4-D ultrasound imaging, almost no one denies that what’s inside is a human baby.

In a disturbing Salon piece this month, Mary Elizabeth Williams declared that debate to be essentially over. She admits we all agree that it’s a baby. The only area of disagreement that remains is whether the mother has a right to end that life:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

Still, Planned Parenthood makes every effort to shield women from this inconvenient truth. The “Stages of Pregnancy” section of their website looks like something out of a 1940s school textbook, complete with line drawings and banal descriptions like “21-22 weeks: The fetus has a CRL of about 7 inches (18–19 cm).” They also steer women away from centers that may provide more complete information— those that do not provide abortions. In a section about “Crisis Pregnancy Centers,” they claim the centers “may try to frighten you with misleading films and pictures to keep you from choosing abortion.” They work tirelessly to fight laws requiring informed consent before a woman receives an abortion.

56 Comments, 20 Threads

1.
thom

as a guy, I realize I have zero influence . But in the last 2 years I have personally met 3 different women, each story a bit different, but all became pregnant, all realized they were now 2, not 1, so 1 delivered and now has a bit lower standard of living, but an incredible baby, the other 2 worked through the 9 months of inconvenience, and now 2 adoptive parents have the baby they were hoping for. BTW, the other 2 women were connected with a group, that basically provided everything financially for them, until the adoption was completed.

Thom, you make a good point about the importance of women knowing there is support available when there is a crisis pregnancy.

The pro-life movement is often accused of not caring about women who choose to continue their pregnancies (or their babies). Nothing could be further from the truth. Crisis pregnancy centers actually outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics and take care of women through all 9 months of pregnancy and even after the baby is born. They help with childbirth, infant care and parenting classes, maternity and baby clothing and equipment, counseling and referrals to the appropriate social service agencies. They also pick up the pieces Planned Parenthood left behind and provide post-abortion counseling for clients who are struggling with a decision they made to have an abortion in the past.

All of these services are provided at no charge to the clients at no cost to the taxpayers.

Regardless of how one feels about a woman’s right to choose, where does it say those of us taxpayers that object to it have to pay for it? As a man, I don’t feel I have a lot of say (though I’m personally opposed) , but I stringently oppose taxpayer funding for it.

I was talking to my (then) teenage daughter a couple years ago and she mentioned the rape/incest instances as being ok but she was otherwise against abortion. Then I asked her why a baby conceived as a result of rape or incest was less valuable than a baby conceived in the back seat of daddy’s car? A baby conceived through rape will be loved by an adoptive family as much as any other child would.

But again, as a man, I feel that I have very little, if any right to input in a woman’s decision. She as well as her doctor will answer to God for the decision they make.

Youre the second guy in the thread to self-sabotage your entirely valid position by appologizing for being “a man”… as if maleness has no effect on where children come from.

Children come from both parents. Children are the future.
Men have just as much at stake in Abortion as women do.

Its not just “a womans decision”. Its a Civilizations Decision.
Mens attitudes TOWARDS women, their discipline, responsibility and character, have quite alot to do with the “The Debate”

Consider taking this stance: It boils down (in most cases?) to women being treated as disposable playthings (through perpetual media onslaughts?) and the “inconvenient truth” of them coerced into accepting such mindless and cavalier sexual activity means they (and the child) must suffer rather ugly consequences to keep “other people” fat and happy.

Men have every right to have an opinion regarding Abortion, and the caustic indermining “narrative” that considers it a Political Sacrement. Because that argument is a sham, based on a lie.

Its not about “women”, its about women being USED to support Left Wing Elitist Designs for Power.

Its about power OVER women….
To keep them “putting out” for fun (and profit!)
and to increse the Elitists Power over LIFE ITSELF.

Excuse the rant. I’m fed up. Thank you PJMedia for providing the opportunity.

There isn’t a public issue hatched in more egregious lies than abortion on demand. From the promises of assuring every child wanted, to the hideous terms like product of conception to make it more tolerable, to the feminist lawyers who sucked an ignorant, desperate and uneducated Norma Leah McCorvey into posing as caricature to file suit, to the back alley abortion made up numbers pulled out of thin air, the entire campaign and ruling has been orchestrated on lies and deceit.

Even the propaganda arm of PP, Guttmacher, admits at least 93% of abortions are done for convenience – no mother’s health issues, no rape, no incest; just birth control. God only knows what the real numbers are. The ultimate red herring: Safe, legal and rare. It’s neither safe nor rare and especially if your Latino or black.

None of this is news to me. I’ve financially supported a local mend crisis pregnancy center that doesn’t discriminate; all expectant mothers are welcome ad they are assisted even through toddler age. They don’t receive a dime of federal tax money. Even helped the pregnancy crisis center purchase an ultrasound machine – absolutely it makes a difference when some naive kid sees the picture of what exactly she is getting ready to abort.

But the question really is why? Why is all of this necessary? Are we so sick as a society that we’ve not only lost our collective national soul, but our collective national mind? These organizations masquerading under such euphemisms as ‘reproductive services’. I kid you not: REPRODUCTIVE services. Like Josef Mengele being labeled health care provider. Here’s what they really are: BUTCHERS.

Back in 1973 when the Supreme Court forced legalized abortion upon the country, it wasn’t difficult to convince a mother that the man coming at her with the surgical mask and a vacuum device was sucking a “blob of tissue” from her womb because the technology did not exist to see the baby inside. But with the advent of 3-D and 4-D ultrasound imaging almost no one denies that what’s inside is a human baby.

Why do we need technology to know what women are aborting is a baby? Of course it is a baby – in every biological definition and sense, it’s a baby. Everyone here was a zygote, an embryo, a fetus. Everyone. Like I said – the justification and even the semantics of the debate are hatched either in lies or to soften the hideousness of the act. “Why, what are you going to name your fetus?” See the lunacy, see the games?

You want to know how Barack Obama was elected twice when so many here see right through that useful idiot but don’t want to admit a really inconvenient truth? Abortion – the perfect example. We’re not following the world into the sewer. We’re leading the world into the sewer. Our entertainment is smut, our media is corrupt, our politicians feckless and self-indulgent, our children are poorly raised and incorrigible, our public schools are a disaster, and marriage has become a punch line. And we’re the supposed beacon on the hill? Is that some kind of sick joke?

After the election of Barack Obama a second time, one thing did change for me besides my attitude. I have dropped this argument about abortion and stopped the financial support to the crisis pregnancy center. Not out of malice – the people that work there are as close to sainthood as I’ve personally met. Most are volunteers. Virtually everything is geared to helping mothers and their newborns.

Nope. It’s the simple recognition that a majority of the women receiving my support to save their child, will then turn around and vote for men like Barack Obama because we may save their baby, but we don’t really change them. I know this in conversation. I know this for a fact.

I don’t care to support people like that anymore. And none will be coming. Abort away…the blood is on your hands.

Bravo, Tex. I like the descriptive term a commentator on Zombie’s article posted, calling Planned Parenthood “Klan Parenthood” because of their propensity for aborting black babies and the racist policies of their founder, the monster Margaret Sanger.

Tex, don’t give up, we need someone as knowledgeable as you! Everything now is a battle to keep truth in “the narrative.” Intimidation and lies are the name of the game–just look at the pretty pink, feminine video above, it’s like shopping for new fashion–we all want one!
We need facts: Show the crushed skull, the bloody, shredded body parts, all in perfect miniature…wait, that looks human!
Instead of “it’s none of my business,” or, “it’s complicated,” let’s look at reality. We own the science. It may be your body, but it is not your DNA. We must fight the battle of definitions and words, because if something as obvious as murder is allowed to be “abstracted” (as Prof. Wessell said)then all is lost, all issues can be redefined, our collective conscience seared.

Thank you for pointing out the financial titan that is Big Abortion. No, we’re not talking about a bunch of Dr. Tillers, swimming around in their money bins like Scrooge McDuck. We’re talking about the half-billion-and-more dollar a year satanic mill that is Planned Parenthood. An industry devoted to killing, yes, but one also focused on the bottom line, like any other business. Someone once told me that if you’re confused why something is happening, you should assume it’s about money and you’ll usually be right. In this case, yep, I’m right.

$500M divided among 150 million taxpayers is under $3.50 a year per taxpayer, under 30 cents a month for women’s health issues. What’s the big problem again? Is everyone so poor or mean that the under 30 cents per month voids being able to pay the bills?

Regardless of the cost, no one should be forced to fund a woman’s choice to abort, ever. If one wishes to abort, she should pay for it herself.

I shouldn’t have to pay for idiots who get in accidents because they were texting, and I shouldn’t have to pay for worthless slobs who need state funded diabetes treatment because they couldn’t stop the soft drinks, either. But I do. And you don’t hear me screeching about it. So some women are doing something you don’t agree with. Boo hoo.

Conservatives are hypocrites on this issue. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The lives of babies killed by abortion are about as special as those lives lost in Pakistan or Yemen or Afghanistan or Somalia or where ever a United States drone strike kills folks who are not wearing uniforms, carrying guns, or been convicted in a court of law of any crime against the United States. The US Government kills innocents abroad daily.

The dead babies are also as innocent as the kids shot by the Police in Chicago every year because the Police “thought” they saw a gun. Ooops. Even when Police do a righteous shooting, the Cop shoots a person who has never been sentenced to death by a jury (after lots of due process). We can make abortion illegal in this country about the time that conservatives agree we can make Police shooting illegal and drone strike illegal too. Won’t see any of that in my lifetime.

You are obviously a confused person. Police shooting is already illegal with certain exceptions, as are indiscriminate drone strikes. You obviously missed the entire point of drone strikes, which used to take out legitimate military targets. Yes, there are often non-combatant casualties included, but that is not the intention of the drone strike. In cases of police shooting, the intent is generally to protect innocents from possible death or grievous harm. Abortion is the only situation in which you pointed to above in which harm to innocent human life is the intention. Your attempt to equate the situations is ridiculously feeble and has failed. Of course, I am pro-choice myself, I just believe that the fetus should be provided a lawyer and a court hearing, including access to a full appeals process, before any abortion can be performed.

Obviously you missed Harry’s overall point. We taxpayers pay big $$ to keep defense contractors like LockMart making big $$ and they’re in the business of killing as well. What he’s saying is that if you’re going to be all high mighty and moral about death, then to be taken seriously you need to expend just as much effort defending kids on the asian continent. Essentially what I get from the anti abortion crowd is that kid death via McDonnell Dounglas is suboptimal but abortion is a morals crime. Hmmm. How many articles on PJM can you find that discuss death of kids overseas and how bad this is?

Face it, do you *really* think we invaded Iraq in 2003 because they were behind al queda? Do you think the US needed to be there to defend Iraqis? Certainly the arguments that the US is bristling with weaponry and needs but an excuse to use it have some merit, as do arguments re the political power of the military industrial complex. Military adventuring is bigtime profit for a pretty large and influential sector. No this isn’t Joan Baez hippy dippy vast right wing conspiracy accusations crap, just honest observation.

Doubt that? Visit http://www.fredoneverything.net, Fred’s even more subversive than me, and yet he too is largely conservative in many ways. Read what Fred says regarding the military. He has a point.

Harry’s point is clear enough and frankly deserves a respectable answer. And his question relates to moral outrage of abortion among the far right christian crowd compared to the LACK of moral outrage of institutional killing of asian kids.

What he’s saying is that if you’re going to be all high mighty and moral about death, then to be taken seriously you need to expend just as much effort defending kids on the asian continent. Essentially what I get from the anti abortion crowd is that kid death via McDonnell Dounglas is suboptimal but abortion is a morals crime. Hmmm. How many articles on PJM can you find that discuss death of kids overseas and how bad this is?

Specious once again, Random. Our intent is not to kill Asian kids, and we make every attempt to minimize collateral damage. Can you say the same of a woman who walks into an abortion clinic? Her intent is 100% of the time to terminate a pregnancy, thereby ending a life.

The only real analogy you could use in content from your example would be a mother’s health simply preventing carrying a baby to term, thereby the abortion itself could be an inadvertent casualty.

However, I do thank you for once for noting to Dr. Leonard just how wrong he was. It’s not only the immoral like you I struggle with.

Our intent is not to kill Asian kids, and we make every attempt to minimize collateral damage.

“Our”? Who is “our”? While it’s clear that the military currently avoids maiming 6 year olds (the collateral damage of which you speak) it’s not entirely clear that this is due to high mindedness as opposed to simpler to explain avoidance of crap publicity. And of course less maiming increases the call — by the left!! — for more of the magical yet expensive videogame weapons. Certainly the military — or at least the decisions made by those calling the shorts — has never been ideologically opposed to carpet bombing of civilians if WWII or vietnam is anything to go by.

The larger point here is that Harry mentions these things and he’s correct to do so; there are countless PJM articles about abortion etc where the bible beaters of the far right come crawling from the woodwork, and seemingly NO articles regarding what ought to be equivalent moral outrage of what’s done in “our” name; there’s a lack of consistency that’s quite interesting.

Wouldn’t a consistent and properly christian right wing site be at the forefront of reporting on weapons tech so as to push the military to develop weaponry that prevents collateral damage? Why are there no articles on weapon specs at PJM? Why is it that the left — which the far right regards as immoral — is the political entity who is in the driver’s seat on this subject?

I have to say, Harry’s right about one thing — bible beaters have inconsistent standards.

Oh, I get it. I forgot who I was talking to here. The uber, Christian bigot. So now we can add the military as mercenaries too? Got it. And if Christian, against abortion and military? What a monster, hey Random?

Here’s a heads up. War is intended to defeat the enemy, usually through killing them to the point of submission.

Tell me, Random. As we Bible beaters come crawling from the woodwork to call abortion wrong, how is your Dear Leader ilk faring over in North Korea or Communist China in their humanity? That is your next of kin.

Of course, with the penchant for Christian bigotry, you do indeed share much in common with the Muslim Brotherhood as well. It’s practically impossible to pin you down as the only thing you consistent in is the marginalization of Christianity and wingnuts.

I can’t remember. Did you ever determine for me what you atheistic types have provided in the way of something edifying, besides death and starvation? Music, art, civilization, law? Anything?

Except for intense feelings for your ‘dear’ abortion loving friend you once spoke and your hatred of Christ, I can’t decide exactly how to define you, except to clearly delineate what you are not:

Tex your understanding of the world is limited, and you slide off the rails very easily. My example was illustrating inconsistencies. Perhaps I’m going to have to remember to bring crayons here henceforth.

I think highly of the military industrial complex; after all, this is the sort of thing that keeps professions like mine in the money. Observing that the role of said complex is and can be morally ambiguous is hardly the denigration of the military you seem to think.

Random, let me shoot straight with you. I really do find you one of the most shallow, most ignorant posters on this entire board. Yes, you’re repetitive with your moronic crayon joke which you invariably use at least one time per thread. At least get some new material to insult next time to show up. But it is more than you’re just a bore and a lout. You’re easily confused – let me demonstrate.

I think highly of the military industrial complex; after all, this is the sort of thing that keeps professions like mine in the money. Observing that the role of said complex is and can be morally ambiguous is hardly the denigration of the military you seem to think.

Not six inches up, you just stated the military, without remorse mind you, vaporizes Asian children. There is nothing ambiguous about that. Add to the fact McDonnell Douglas hasn’t existed for 16 years, you’re not even familiar with the military industrial complex, much less in the money from the military complex. Not only does this demonstrate you’re a world class, duplicitous hypocrite not willing to follow the high minded rules you wish to apply to everyone else, but you’re not a very good story teller either.

I would say best descriptor of you is Moby, along with the typical garden variety Christian bigot. They’re legend across the net – there’s nothing particularly unique about you. Except these Moby types don’t generally hang around PJMedia for long.

Harry’s point was about inconsistency. Address that.

I already did in addressing your abject stupidity of your first statement, which is also applicable to Harry’s mischaracterization of the intent of our military and police. I don’t think our military has the INTENT to kill Asian children anymore than I do Chicago cops are out to kill “innocent” kids, so innocent these kids that they’re killing each other at a rate of about ten a weekend.

But I have no doubt the INTENT of these butchers at Planned Parenthood is to enrich themselves while terminating a pregnancy under the guise of REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES.

See, I don’t thing you’re off the rails like you do me. I think you’re carrying around about a 200lbs chip about life on your shoulder because you’re an obviously miserable human being. I suspect you’re not affiliated with the industrial military complex (cough cough) but in the business of baby butchering.

You fit the Planned Parenthood mill persona to a ‘T’.

Now that I have once again answered Harry’s observation, why don’t you try answering my observation of you and your ilk.

I would like to cast light on the matter from the view point of a philosopher. We “thinkers” are destined to occupy ourselves with abstractions, formalities, etc. What could be more abstract than: “He who says ‘a’, must say ‘b’”. A truism of logic. Well, permit me to introduce you to a line of logical abstractions that were once upon a time deadly in the country in which I live, namely Germany.

Some 70 years ago or so, Nazis not only commenced a war (nothing new in German history), but added a new “formality” to it, that is, “annihilation” of certain “races”. Alas, all too many documentaries treat Hitler & Co as “crazy” or “insane”, which many undoubtly were. But the Nazi were not dumb, indeed, they had a strict moral code, a moral “formality”. Let me explain the “formality”, viz., abstract logic followed by Nazis.

The moral principle guiding Nazi ethics was: “Unwertes Leben” must be done away with (= killed)”. I translate “unwertes Leben” as “humans not worthy of living”. Among the many drawbacks of such “humans not worthy of living” are the destructive effects upon society and its striving for fulfilment, etc. The Nazis went one step further and sought a scientific method of identifying said “humans not worthy of living”. And so they turned to “science” (borrowing from the eugenics movement in the Anglo-Saxon world — oh yes, Americans were inacting racist elimnation before the Nazis, paricularly legally enforced sterilizations). The “science” of the day, the science believed in, concluded that certain subgroups of humans damaged the ongoing well-being and improvement of the human race (of course understood within the parameters of racism). What subgroups? Off hand, gypsies, slaves and, oh yes, particularly Jews. In order to save “Germanic” society from the deliterious effects of “unwertes Leben”, the Nazis followed the moral impulse to rid the world of such “unwertes Leben”. That is their racial “right”! And so the concentration camps, etc. Before I go on it is necessary to note that “normal” German men and women of the time did not always find it easy to be cleansers of the race and methodically kill. Even such a monster as Himmler had his problems. Indeed, the moral ruminatins of Himmler are as freigthening as they are enlightening. They show the real consequence of “abstractions”.

Well, we all know what happened and that such MORAL monsters lost their war (not without much eliminatory success). So, the reader of this comment might think, what do the moral values of the defeated bearers of an ethics of “unwertes Leben” have to do with the abortion problem in the USA of today? My answer forces me to bring the reader back to formalities, to abstractions, to weird principles. To my horror and disbelief, not to mention enormous sorrow, I find such formalities repeated in the justification for abortion in the US of A.

This comment allows for no detail, so I must squeeze the American way of “unwertes Leben” into a few words. The princple is simple: “Not all life is equal”. What does life consist of? Fulfillment, of course! That is your right, your choice, your value. So, if you (i.e., you females and males who have to pay for it) should find that children or pregnancy most likely will make your life “unwert”, i.e., not worth while living (or at least the worth is diminished), you have your moral “right” to eliminate said “unwertes Leben”. Inded, perhaps you need a HHS Mandate to achieve your “right” to elimiate “unwertes Leben”. The Nazis used “science”, the abortionist uses ros< sociology, psychology or any justifying argument of the moment. One such argument is captured under the slogan of "pro-choice". Well, as the author, Bolyard, has shown, this type of "moral" claim is facing difficulties re propaganda value. So, obfuscation, new slogans, etc. are being tried out. The experimental thinking of the abortionists reminds me of a similar type of thinking carried out by Himmler. By Himmler? Am I not insulting people who in no way want to murder Jews, etc. by associating them with a master Nazi? My response:

On a material level one could, perhaps, accuse me of such calumny. But not in line with "formalities". The material argumentation for abortion today evinces a hinous similarity to the formality of the material argumentation used by Nazis to justify the elimination of "unwertes Leben" in their time. The ethical imperative reamins: "Unwertes Leben" is to be done away with! The means of identifying "unwertes Leben" has changed since the days of Himmler, but the formality of justification remains the same in the days of Obama. What I here assert is no more and no less than: "Who says 'a', must say 'b'". Who said that logic cannot be deadly.

To my horror and disbelief, not to mention enormous sorrow, I find such formalities repeated in the justification for abortion in the US of A.

I think you have made the perfect analogy to those mealy-mouthed types who justify abortion on demand or worse simply and conveniently turn the blind eye by, “I could never have one myself, but…” and the “Safe, legal and rare” crowd.”

Tex you tax my patience. I do not mind being somewhat misunderstood, but not in a 180° false direction. It is true that I could never have an abortion myself or, if I could, I, as a male, would be a medical wonder. With just what I am a perfect analogy, I know not. What I did in my comment is to draw a parellel “analogy” between the argumentation used in Nazi Germany to rid the world of human life not worthwhile nor worthy of living and the formal structure of the argumentation used to justify abortion today in the USA. This analogy is the “formality” that a philosopher likes to focus upon. I condemn unreservedly with my whole being the liquidation of “unwertes Leben”, be it a supposedly inferior race or be it a real live unborn human!!! In the terms of America such liquidation is called “abortion”. Is my stance clear? If not, ask again and I shall endeavor to enlighten you.

I can do little to help you with an apparent lack of intelligence, but I do hope that this short answer has shown you the error of your judgment concerning my supposed affirmation of abortion. To put the matter in Christian theological terms, Tex, abortion is a sin, the sin of murder. Presuming you have been able to understand my response, I am quite willing to accept your apology for your misstaken accusation of me as being in favor of abortion. In all charity, I suggest that you take a junior college level introductory course to logic. It might help refine the limited acuity of your ability to think.

Well, undoubtedly not only do I not only tax your patience, I taxed your comprehension too. I just read again my response to be sure, and I have absolutely no idea how you just concluded about me what you did.

I’ve never been toasted for not only agreeing someone, but complimenting someone for their clarity of thought.

What the hell do you teach that could lend itself to somebody being so totally clueless in response?

Good grief. No wonder the “pro-choice” crowd thinks we’re a bunch of inane inbreds.

Tex, I took your reference to “you” as refering to me personally, not to the position that I was presenting. That seems to have been a heuristic error on my part, for which I must offer an apology. Mea culpa! If my misinterpretation of your use of “you”, which is a possible one, were correct, than my response was in tune with my interpretation. You mystified me. I am very sensititve about the abortion issue because I associate it formally with the mass elimination of life carried out by Nazis. Anyone living in Germany, particularly having studied the time so long, is super-sensitive. So, my mistaken interpretation led me to reacting quite personally. So, Tex, you have restored my faith in your intelligence. I fear the “intelligence” of the promoters of abortion, relative to which the apparent shift in slogans seems to be a smart move.

Tex, a personal note about me: Ages ago in a land far, far away, a half-sibling of mine, whose gender I do not know, was aborted. But for the luck of the dice or whatever, that creature could have been I. This makes me affected deeply should I think that I am being placed in the camp of abortionists. I suppose such a tender spot was ignited in my erring interpretation of you. Let there be peace, a rather commodity.

Well, at lest we got ONE of them to fess up and call it killing for convenience…

” Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

I’ve tried being a Good Christian most of my life, but I’ve come to the conclusion thats some forms of life just really ARENT that special, and dont deserve my consideration.

So it sounds like me and her are on the same page, ‘cept for one small fact.

For me to go on a Righteous Killin’ Spre, the ones getting killed need to have DONE SOMETHING…like…shoot up a movie theater, rape a child, steal money, sell military secrets to our enemies, beat-up an old lady when youre a 20-something Young Bull…

You know, be GUILTY of something.

I’m all fer killin’forms of life I have contempt for, and now, they’ve finally admitted they do too.

So the debate now can shift to who SHOULD we kill…

WHICH human beings, and WHY.

Who deserves death more….innocent babies, or convicted murderes….

Glad that Chickie finally came out of the closet and called murder for convenience what it is.

Now we can finally have an HONEST conversation about WHO’S conveniences warrant Murder, and WHY.

Baloney. Sorry, I mean thinking that as a man you have no valid opinion on abortion is baloney. Don’t let (liberal) women intimidate you. Be bold, be loud and let the chips fall. Even liberal women secretly admire a man who leads. And we conservative women literally swoon!

If Catholic employers have the right to dictate which safe and legal treatments/medications their employees may benefit from, do Jehova Witness employers have the right to deny blood transfusions in employee insurance coverage also?

If women have the right to dictate which of their recreational activities their employers need to assist in funding, can men demand that employers pay for their helmets, pads and other safety equipment if they participate in extreme sports?

Yes, The Root ’83, they do, but not for the reasons you gave. thom and Walt C illogically reasoned that because of their gender, their opinion would have less weight, when in fact their gender is a logical fallacy of relevance, Ad Hominem Circumstantial to be specific.

When one makes the argument that “Abortion is (wrong) or (right)”, one must address the argument, not the circumstances (gender) of the arguer. The sex of the arguer is as irrelevant as the color of their shoes.

Yes, The Root ’83, they do, but not for the reasons you gave. thom and Walt C illogically reasoned that because of their gender, their opinion would have less weight, when in fact their gender is a logical fallacy of relevance, Ad Hominem Circumstantial to be specific.

When the argument that “Abortion is (wrong) or (right)” is presented, one must address the argument, not the circumstances (gender) of the arguer. The sex of the arguer is as irrelevant as the color of their shoes.

I’m not aware of any employer health insurance that pays for recreational activities by men or women. Some health insurance plans pay for vision, which allows employees to read at work and for pleasure at home. Some pay for dental, which maintains employee health through good nutrition with a bonus that employees find eating pleasurable. Many women take the pill to regulate/relieve their menstrual cycles with the side effects of reduced chances of pregnancy which may increase sexual pleasure. Although I asked first and answered your question, please answer mine.

Opposition to abortion and its companion, opposition to use of contraception, are strongly held religious beliefs (reference: http://www.seculargovernment.us Dr. Hsieh & her husband, Dr. Paul Hsieh, blog occasionally on PJ Media). For further information, do a Google on former, and likely future, presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Anti-abortion advocates always fail on a couple of counts: do families have a right to make their own reproductive decisions, or will those decisions be made for them by the state, Soviet Russia style?

Second, do women have the right to make their own health care decisions, or will those decisions be made for them by big government, powered by big religion?

A third thought on the so-called issue of “religious liberty.” Anti-abortion & anti-contraception advocates call for employers to be able to refuse to provide contraceptive services within their health insurance programs, even if the carriers pay for it. The argument is that it violates the religious liberty of the employers. But what about the religious liberty of the employees, in having the religious views of their employers imposed upon them?

A final thought…….several posters have written that “Roe v. Wade” was forced upon the country. Bear in mind that Roe is not the only target for the anti-abortion community. Many also have their sights set on overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, which removed state mandates dis-allowing sale of contraception.

“A third thought on the so-called issue of “religious liberty.” Anti-abortion & anti-contraception advocates call for employers to be able to refuse to provide contraceptive services within their health insurance programs, even if the carriers pay for it. The argument is that it violates the religious liberty of the employers. But what about the religious liberty of the employees, in having the religious views of their employers imposed upon them?”

Employers are under no moral obligation to provide any insurance. Choosing what coverage they decide to provide is not imposing anything. Employees can either take what is offered or not.

“Employers are under no moral obligation to provide any insurance. Choosing what coverage they decide to provide is not imposing anything. Employees can either take what is offered or not.”

Garrett:

Suppose an employer believes that God will keep employees from being injured and orders all government-mandated safety equipment removed from machinery.

According to your logic, employers are under no moral obligation to provide any safety equipment. Choosing what safety equipment employers decide to provide is not imposing anything on employees. If employees don’t believe God will protect them, they can go get a job somewhere else.

It always amazes me as to how those masquerading as small-government libertarians and Republicans change their tune when it comes to birth control or end-of-life (Terri Schaivo) decisions. Now all of a sudden Big Brother knows best for me and mine.

“It always amazes me as to how those masquerading as small-government libertarians and Republicans change their tune when it comes to birth control or end-of-life (Terri Schaivo) decisions. Now all of a sudden Big Brother knows best for me and mine.”

Hold it a minute there, ace.

It is the Statists that want Big Government to COMPEL private concerns to subsidize birth control and abortion. You’ve got it exactly backwards and contrariwise.

For better or worse, the legality of abortion is not REALLY the issue at hand, but rather is “Who will PAY”. Once your eyes are opened, you will fully understand what this is all about.

Now, how do you feel abouyt YOUR health insurance premiums rising in oredr to fund the abortion of some woman in her mid-20′s which occurred AFTER she had failed to use the contraceptives which you had ALSO been forced to subsidize?

No, I have nothing backwards. It is conservative Republicans sticking their government noses into citizen’s bedrooms and it was the same “small government conservatives” that came unglued over Terri Schaivo.

I fairly asked a question as to why Catholic religion is supposed to get favor over that of Jehova Witnesses. It remains unanswered for obvious reasons. You answer mine, I’ll answer yours.

Is opposition to abortion and contraception, as well as euthanasia, exclusively a Catholic phenomenon in your mind?

Are you an anti-Papist?

Now, as to “small government Conservatives” being the ones who want the “government into citizens’ bedrooms”… the thrust of Ms. Bolyard’s post was how Planned Parenthood is revamping their PR image.

This is not being done because the debate is about banning private adult sexual behaviors, but is rather an attempt by that organization to keep their taxpayer subsidies.

It’s a matter of who PAYS, not WHAT people DO. Certainly there are those who would LIKE to ban private adult sexual practices, but even they have learned that not all laws are enforceable.

The tenor of your replies indicates that you have accepted the NARAL and Planned Parenthood “Corporate Line” that ANY resistance to their agendas is tantamount to advocating tyranny, while in FACT, it is ObamaCare that is the tyranny.

And while you are scandalizing by any example you THINK indicates government intervention in the sex lives of citizens, one wonders if you are similarly scandalized by the laws against pedophilia.